Other Dates for Rome's Fall: Pros and Cons

By N.S. Gill, About.com Guide

The Rise of Kingdoms in the Roman Empire - Part 2 of 9

Rome fell, by most accounts, and 476 is a reasonable date, but the fall was preceded by a period of decline, and so there are several reasonable dates earlier than the last quarter of the fifth century upon which to pin the label "date for the fall of Rome." For the more literal, since the Roman Empire continued in the East, this 476 date is way too early, especially since the date-claiming event in 476 was much less than earth-shaking. Recently, historians of late antiquity have suggested specific battles fought against Arabs mark the end point. Those who say Rome didn't fall until the Ottomans, prefer the 15th century date, and some even say that since Rome still exists as a vibrant Italian city, and the location of the spiritual head of an international religion, it never fell at all. In his How Rome Fell, which is long, but much shorter and more readable than Gibbon's work, brilliant contemporary British historian Adrian Goldsworthy remarks that each era decides how Rome fell, and that they do so based on their own prejudices and obsessions. That's a warning.

Rome fell after a period of responding to problems (war, famine, pestilence, competing leaders, and short-term emperors) with solutions that triggered other problems. Almost any one of these could be argued to have driven Rome over the brink. Here are some of the popular dates for the Fall:

1. The Third Century Crisis (Age of Chaos): (235-284)

   The turmoil, including the deaths by unnatural causes and high turnover of (around 60) emperors, was a clear indication that Rome was no longer enjoying the Pax Romana. To have that many emperors, there had to be many civil wars, with one army killing the opposing leader, or mutiny and assassination within the emperor's own ranks. Germanic language-speakers tribes raided frontiers in Gaul, Italy, Spain, Greece, North Africa, and Asia Minor. Based on an Athenian contemporary source known as Dexippus, we learn that in 267/268, Gothic Heruli (probably originally from Scythia who, in the later 5th century, settled in Pannonia) sacked Athens from their boats, terrorizing the people as, later, Vikings would, starting about five centuries into the future [Goldsworthy p. 114]. The Heruli destroyed the Temple of Artemis. By the end, the main threats from beyond were Goths, Franks, and Alamanni. Rome suffered military defeats and plague. The first of the many emperors ousted during this period of assassination and incessant civil war was Alexander Severus, the final member of the Severan dynasty. He was replaced by the soldier son of a Thracian peasant, Maximinus Thrax. Diocletian put an end to period of chaos, but his predecessor Aurelian had already reunited areas of the empire that had been held by different leaders.

   On the Eastern front, the emperor Valerian was captured, in 260, by Shapur, the king of the new Persian empire, the Sassanids.

   Each new emperor would reward his troops with a donative, so the more killed, the more money for the soldiers. Bankruptcy led to the removal of silver from coins. Diocletian tied the peasants to the land as tenant farmers known as coloni to make sure he could collect taxes from them. Their descendants were also coloni.

   Our literary sources on the period are not as reliable as they are for earlier and later periods.

   On the other hand...
   Rome recovered, and the emperors gained, rather than lost power, although the gain in power meant the power of the people had diminished. Cities built protective walls with towers for defensive missile-hurling. Even villas developed defensive structures. Such turreted walls were more familiar as part of the famous medieval castle structure.

2. Diocletian and the Tetrarchy: (285-305)

   Diocletian quartered the empire (creating the Tetrarchy) because it was too big for one man to control and there were enemies on multiple fronts. Fearing a continuation of the barrage of assassinations that went on in the preceding period, he reduced the power of the provincial administrators so they would pose less of a threat.

   The Empire was no longer one piece. There were too many enemies at the gate for Rome to handle as one big country.

   On the other hand...
   Rome developed the infrastructure it needed to deal with these issues, including price edicts, a new taxation system, a system for fortifying the frontiers, and, of course, the tetrarchy.

3. Constantine's reign: (306-337)

   Constantine created what would become a new capital city on the site of the ancient city of Byzantium, in the non-Latin-speaking East. He also gave Christianity a boost, putting wealth into the hands of Christian leaders and building Christian structures. Christianity was at odds with the inclusive religious practices of the Roman Empire, and the (living god) emperor cult, and developed a hierarchy of wealthy, powerful officers, with stature formed outside Rome's traditional senatorial and equestrian channels.

   On the other hand...
   Constantine gave the empire relative stability. Except for the persecutions, Rome had been relatively accepting of new faiths and was eminently adaptable. The development of new hierarchies to deal with new systems was old school. Jealousy of the elites over the improved status of newcomers had been going on at least since the Twelve Tables period. It wasn't until after Constantine's reign that Constantinople became a fixed capital city. Besides, Constantine reverted to the one man model of the earlier empire, joining East and West.

4. Julian's Reign: (360-363)

   Julian attempted to revert to the earlier religious system of Rome. During the Republic, politics and religion were not entirely separate: there was a state religion, and with the emperors had emerged imperial cults, but gradually, the Eastern influence had made itself felt in more religious areas than just Christianity. Religion had become more individualistic and spiritual. Julian's pagan religion wasn't the playful performance of the Saturnalia. When he failed, the new (less tolerant of other religions) Christian religion with a different morality in addition to its different hierarchy came to dominate the empire. There was also the bloody issue of competing Christianities. With Julian's death, Rome once again showed its weakness by losing to the Persians.

   On the other hand...
   this may well be the weakest contender for the date of the fall, but proud Rome detested losing and especially losing its leader. The real issue is whether the loss of a supporter of the old religions led to the fall of Rome by allowing the rise of Christianity. Is Julian just a scapegoat?

5. Battle of Adrianople: (378)

   Oddly, this defeat in the East had more serious repercussions in the West. The results of the Eastern Empire losing this battle to the Goths included using Goths as mercenaries and granting them concessions so long as they moved towards the Western Empire. Alaric, the Gothic leader, moved into Italy, leading to the next event.

   The empire was divided again. There were too many enemies at the gates for the emperors to handle on their own, so they needed the presence of their co-emperors. Unfortunately, co-emperors had their own battles to fight and territory to worry about. The empire wasn't united or working for a single aim.

   On the other hand...
   it was in the East that the devastating defeat went down and the Eastern Empire survived for 1100 years more. Although it's not hard to show how this related to the next generation of barbarians landing in the west, the empire survived the battle itself in fine style.

6. Goths Sack Rome: (410)

   Alaric sacked the city of Rome, the heart of the Empire.

   On the other hand...
   Alaric had tried to work within the Roman system, and failed, but he wasn't interested in ruling Rome. Alaric and his men left the city after three days, taking along with them the Roman princess Galla Placidia, daughter of Theodosius I, who married Alaric's successor, Athaulf, was widowed, returned by Athaulf's successor, Wallia (Valia) to Rome to remarry and give birth to a future western emperor, Valentinian III (r. 435-455).

   True, Wallia gained Aquitaine for the Visigoths in 417 -- the first barbarian kingdom inside the confines of the Roman Empire (Kulikowsky), in return for returning the emperor's sister to Honorius, but that was 7 years later.

7. Vandals (455)

   Vandals took over northern Africa, thereby depriving Rome of its breadbasket. Food shortage was a serious problem.

   The Vandals were still there much later and so this part of the empire was lost.

   On the other hand...
   the heart of the Roman Empire was still okay.

8. Odoacer deposes Romulus Augustulus (476)

   The Western Empire was over. The Roman Empire was now only in the East.

   On the other hand...
   his successor was, unlike Romulus Augustulus, a legitimate administrator of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire continued from its Eastern capital.

9. Battle of Heliopolis (640)

   Arab Muslims gained control of the Byzantine properties in Africa shortly after they had gained control of the Levant. Heraclius, emperor, faced enemies on all sides.

   Egypt was still supplying the Byzantine Empire with grain, so it was a financial loss of consequence.

   On the other hand...
   tensions had been mounting in Egypt over religion and taxes for a long time, so separation may have been inevitable. There were other battles elsewhere in the Empire that may have been at least as significant, like Charles Martel's defeat of the Arabs at Poitiers or Tours, in 732, preparing the way for a new western emperor, Charlemagne. The area of Constantinople was still in "Roman" hands.

10. Ottoman Turks (1453)

    There was no more Roman Empire.

    On the other hand...
    there is still a city of Rome.

The Rise of Kingdoms in the Roman Empire Part